And I would encourage others in the blogosphere not to be so quick to jump on the “I Am TJIC” bandwagon unless they have some pretty good answers to these questions. I know I don’t.Someone, and I cannot remember who, wrote a wonderful piece that tied the two together - that you don't have to support what TJIC said in order to be appalled at what happened to him. In fact, it's an interesting Rorschach test - I have never said that I support what he said; just that I support him; in fact, I said exactly this:
What he wrote is distasteful to some - advocating the assassination of members of Congress immediately following a senseless shooting is in poor taste IMHO - but it's not treason. It's not inciting violence - he does not advocate the shooting of congress critters, he makes (what I assume to be) a tongue-in-cheek assessment that care needs to be taken to avoid collateral damage. It's in poor taste, that's for certain - but a threat? Hardly. There's nothing threatening involved.Notice that I do *not* say that I agree with him - in fact, I call his words "in poor taste" - yet the simple fact that I abhor what's happened to him lumps me in with him - on both left and right leaning blogs. Simply because the actions taken against TJIC offend me - and, quite frankly, frighten me as a MA gun blogger - does not mean that I support his words. What I support is TJIC's right to speak his mind without retaliation from the government - the very first enumerated right in our Bill of Rights.
I don't know what Mr. Ellis knows of MA gun laws; the "suitability" clause is vague, applied capriciously and arbitrarily, and is absolutely unconstitutional - if you are denied a Class A or B LTC, you cannot own a handgun or a "large capacity" longarm in MA. IOW, you are denied the very tools given to our military, in clear contravention to the 2nd Amendment. There are court cases currently being argued against this policy - Alan Gura and the SAF are spearheading efforts in conjunction with Comm2A, a local advocacy group, because of the inequality in how these are handled as well as the capricious nature. Let's not lose sight of the fact that TJIC was not charged with a crime, something that gets lost in the shuffle. His actions did not warrant criminal charges, yet he faces the prospect of permanent revocation of his Second Amendment rights.
On its face, this action should scare the hell out of any freedom loving American. We have a citizen who has committed no crime, yet is being punished by the government by revoking an enumerated right. That's the core of what's going on here, and it's why I support TJIC. I don't care for what he said; I don't agree with his views in many cases; yet this is PRECISELY what the First Amendment is about - it's to protect the speech that we find most repugnant. I can't stand the bastards at Westboro Baptist, the ones that protest soldiers' funerals and such - yet I support their right to speak their "minds" without fear of governmental retribution. It doesn't mean I support their goals.
We stand for liberty, or we do not. We support all speech as free from government retribution, or we support no freedom of speech. The Second Amendment is under fire in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson - and now, as evidenced by the actions taken against TJIC, so is the First Amendment. We don't have to like what TJIC said - in fact, we can loathe it with every fiber of our being - but we need to recognize that the government punishing a citizen for speaking their mind is dead-set against everything this country stands for. Distasteful does not equal illegal. One does not need to agree with the speech involved to support the freedom of the speaker to say it.
I still stand with TJIC.
That is all.
15 comments:
*stands and applauds*
ditto on what Ross said!
Preach it, Brother.
Agreed.
Its very similar to the word "tolerance" that you hear bandied about so often today. The Left believes that tolerance is about inclusiveness of ideas, speech, and actions from those that they have very little problem with.
Some of them believe themselves to be "tolerant", because they feel comfortable cozying up with Man Made Global Warming proponents, poor misunderstood islamic extremists, whatever foreign dictator that is currently in vogue, etc. They smuggly stand before the cameras and microphones with a big smile on their face and proclaim "Lookie how tolerant I am!!", while simultaneously denegrating Tea Party members as "Tea Baggers" and giggling at the silly conservatives who insist on reading the boring and out dated old Constitution.
That's not tolerance.
Tolerance is what I exhibit by not kicking them in the nut sack after having to listen to them blather.
I also took his comment 'tongue in cheek'. But having not seen his original post, I cannot perceive his context.
To that end i'm simply supporting him in his predicament in an unimaginable situation ...
Great post. I elaborated on the case law over at my place.
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-words.html
Quote of the Day: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington
Linked, because I could not say it any better.
http://randomactsofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2011/01/marooned-clarifies-issue.html
Jay, thanks!
I posted back when the I am TJIC because I firmly believe that the first protects fool, idiots, oh yes and importantly the rest of us. That means I have to respect that the worse get to say horrid things. What I like or dislike doesn't count.
The constitution is under assault and no one is noticing it was we are being pecked to death by a flock of ducks.
Eck!
I really wish his blog was still up. He did a great job of explaining his position in later posts.
Perhaps all would be served by concidering that our right to free speach brings with it a responsibility to not speak freely and a consequence if we choose to do so.
Argie,
I'm hoping that's not how you meant it to come out, I really do.
If TJIC had lost his job over what he said, I would agree with you completely - our right to free speech does not give us the right to avoid the consequences of that speech.
But the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights gives us freedom from governmental retaliation - that's one of the cornerstones of free society.
When we start censoring ourselves out of fear of government reprisal, well, that thought is too frightful to consider - that's the world of George Orwell's "1984" or the totalitarian world of Joseph Stalin. We can and have fought wars to liberate people from regimes such as that.
Argie, you know not of what you speak. The First Amendment speaks to the right of free speech, it does not speak to responsibility at all.
As I've said, it's not something that I would have said, even being the wise ass I'm known for being, but TC should have neither his First or Second Amendment rights abridged because he said something unpopular. The First Amendment is all about unpopular speech, whether by individuals or mass media. It was meant to encourage vigorous criticism of the government and government officials.
We do a disservice to all by standing around and letting a blogger have his rights curtailed because a public official didn't like his comments.
The Framers of the Constitution would be horrified.
All of us are always responsible for our actions, and we must live with the consequences of them, whatever they are. We are, however, thanks to the First Amendment, able to make the choice for ourselves as to whether or not we are going to say certain things and deal with the consequences or not.
In this particular case, the consequences meted out were above and beyond what should be permissable by any government, given that no actual threat was made, and, apparently, no crime was committed.
At any rate, I can live with being blamed for this post... count on an eventual link :).
I would also say that his right to due process has also been violated, but that's just me.
Post a Comment